9 ms·

If you cannot comply with local restrictions on press freedom you have no business serving content to users from those countries.

space_rock 5y ago
Exactly. It's a circular argument to say a law is good because it's a law. And no one has any idea of financial laws in each country Saying that Sam Altman is a scammer
maxbond 5y ago
This comparison would imply that securities laws are unjust because financiers are regularly targeted by authoritarian regimes. Which is ludicrous. They aren't the underdogs here. They _are_ the powerful parties who need to be kept in check for democracy to function. A journalist publishing despite censorship is in no way comparable to wealthy promoters distributing unregulated securities. I think what you were going for may have been that distributing these securities is in some way freedom of speech, which is also just incorrect, or correct in some way so limited as to be irrelevant. If it is freedom of speech, your freedom to distribute securities stops at scamming your neighbor's nose. But the burden of proof here is on your security _not_ being a scam, and that is because unregulated securities markets readily devolve into scam after scam.
- paisawalla 5y ago
  The law isn't optional when it restrains things I don't like.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  If laws forbid what you want to do, you're clearly, by definition, not in power.
  - throwaway2048 5y ago
    The point of a nation of laws is to restrain the powerful, the powerful don't need laws to do what they want done, and the law is the only safe redress the abused have against them. Which is why unpunished abuses of the law by elites in society is so damaging in the long run, it erodes the very foundation of what it means to be a just society.
    - BurningFrog 5y ago
      By that definition, it's hard to understand why the powerful don't just use their power to stop the legislation holding them back. I think in reality there are many different kinds of power, and talking about power as if it's one simple fungible thing leads to naive and wrong conclusions.
      - maxbond 5y ago
        I agree, the thing is, the person who introduced the idea into this conversation that power was a boolean quantity and that it meant you either could do anything or were limited in some way - was you. I don't mean this as a personal attack or anything, it's just the facts; we weren't talking in those terms until you introduced them. You wouldn't need to disagree with this point if you hadn't brought it up yourself. Powerful people lobby against legislation constantly with mixed success. They're able to hold a lot of influence, but not able to hold total influence. It is difficult to understand, it's a complex system composed of many fully autonomous human beings. But we do ourselves a disservice when we cast it in such stark terms, wouldn't you say?
        BurningFrog 5y ago
        Sure. I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny. Such is life on the forums sometimes.
        maxbond 5y ago
        > I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny. So you're wrong, but it isn't your fault, because you didn't even believe what you said, and you only said it because you wanted to respond to my argument, which you didn't think was worth taking seriously? I'd encourage you to hold yourself and your public statements to a higher standard than that. If my arguments aren't worth responding to - don't. If you don't believe something - don't say it. That isn't just "how things go," that's a series of decisions you made. Putting that on me shouldn't be something you accept from yourself.
  - maxbond 5y ago
    So if I were the President, and I attempted to appoint an unqualified judge and was denied by Congress, you would argue that I don't hold power? Power is not a binary quantity, and there isn't just one type of power.
    - 8note 5y ago
      Yes. A power president would be able to put in unqualified judges. Considering there was recently a president putting in unqualified judges, while the prior president couldn't put in any judges, that is a difference in their power
      - maxbond 5y ago
        So, hucksters cannot be regulated because they don't hold absolute power? Indeed, we can't even talk about power differentials unless there is absolute power? That would seem to contradict your last statement, so I'm just not sure what you are asserting here.
    - Spooky23 5y ago
      In a democratic society, the power of the executive is defined by law. The President is a powerful individual, but he is not a King. By law, appointments of certain positions require explicit consent of congress. The ability of regressive partisan elements to break government is a part of the design of the government. I personally find it repugnant and stupid. I also think that the short sighted nature of wielding this power in such a trivial and hamfisted way will ultimately backfire and result in constitutional changes down the road.
      - paisawalla 5y ago
        > The ability of regressive partisan elements to break government is a part of the design of the government. I personally find it repugnant and stupid. It's amazing the way you guys (small-d democrats) are always dressing up what is nakedly the statement that "everything I like and want is good and proceeds in a way I'll call democracy (because I say it's good for the people), but whatever I dislike is authoritarian (even if the people want it.)" It may surprise you to learn that, historically, this is exactly how authoritarianism views itself. Even Saddam Hussein conducted polls of his popularity so he could pretend his sovereignty arose from the people. The Vichy government was legal, popular, and internationally recognized. What the law says on paper is a different thing than what is practiced, and conveniently appealing to what the paper says is a time-honored tactic of eliding inconvenient realities. Democracy, c. 2020s: "The people must be allowed to choose, but only if what they choose is good for them, as decided by me."
rgrieselhuber 5y ago
This is why the Founders (in America) made it clear that the human rights have an ontological basis that transcends any law (rights are granted by God, whatever that means to you). Rights that are granted by laws are not rights at all, which is why the proper understanding of human rights is that they can neither be granted nor taken away by any human law, as any law that would do so is just a coercive force belonging to whoever happens to be in power at the time. The Anti-Federalists were so concerned to make this clear that they even viewed enumerating basic rights in the Bill of Rights as dangerous / likely to be interpreted as exhaustive vs. transcendent, which is exactly what has happened over time, of course.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  This is actually my favorite comment of the year. Pardon the ignorant question, but what did you study to learn this? My midwestern education completely failed me here. I'd like to read whatever it is you read.
  - rgrieselhuber 5y ago
    Thank you. :) Man, I wish I had a simple answer for you, it's basically what I've pieced together over the years by trying to fill in the gaps in my own midwestern education. A lot of it, I did pick up by digging into the history the Federalist / Anti-Federalist papers themselves, as well as various readings on the Founders / framing of the Constitution. If I think of anything specific I can point to, I'll follow back up here.
    - sillysaurusx 5y ago
      Thank you. Honestly, any starting point whatsoever would be extremely helpful. That's the thing that's prevented me from ever seriously diving in, mostly because life makes so little time for it. But I can make the time now.
      - rgrieselhuber 5y ago

space_rock 5y ago

Exactly. It's a circular argument to say a law is good because it's a law. And no one has any idea of financial laws in each country Saying that Sam Altman is a scammer

maxbond 5y ago

This comparison would imply that securities laws are unjust because financiers are regularly targeted by authoritarian regimes. Which is ludicrous. They aren't the underdogs here. They _are_ the powerful parties who need to be kept in check for democracy to function. A journalist publishing despite censorship is in no way comparable to wealthy promoters distributing unregulated securities. I think what you were going for may have been that distributing these securities is in some way freedom of speech, which is also just incorrect, or correct in some way so limited as to be irrelevant. If it is freedom of speech, your freedom to distribute securities stops at scamming your neighbor's nose. But the burden of proof here is on your security _not_ being a scam, and that is because unregulated securities markets readily devolve into scam after scam.

paisawalla 5y ago
The law isn't optional when it restrains things I don't like.
BurningFrog 5y ago
If laws forbid what you want to do, you're clearly, by definition, not in power.
- throwaway2048 5y ago
  The point of a nation of laws is to restrain the powerful, the powerful don't need laws to do what they want done, and the law is the only safe redress the abused have against them. Which is why unpunished abuses of the law by elites in society is so damaging in the long run, it erodes the very foundation of what it means to be a just society.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    By that definition, it's hard to understand why the powerful don't just use their power to stop the legislation holding them back. I think in reality there are many different kinds of power, and talking about power as if it's one simple fungible thing leads to naive and wrong conclusions.
    - maxbond 5y ago
      I agree, the thing is, the person who introduced the idea into this conversation that power was a boolean quantity and that it meant you either could do anything or were limited in some way - was you. I don't mean this as a personal attack or anything, it's just the facts; we weren't talking in those terms until you introduced them. You wouldn't need to disagree with this point if you hadn't brought it up yourself. Powerful people lobby against legislation constantly with mixed success. They're able to hold a lot of influence, but not able to hold total influence. It is difficult to understand, it's a complex system composed of many fully autonomous human beings. But we do ourselves a disservice when we cast it in such stark terms, wouldn't you say?
      - BurningFrog 5y ago
        Sure. I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny. Such is life on the forums sometimes.
        maxbond 5y ago
        > I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny. So you're wrong, but it isn't your fault, because you didn't even believe what you said, and you only said it because you wanted to respond to my argument, which you didn't think was worth taking seriously? I'd encourage you to hold yourself and your public statements to a higher standard than that. If my arguments aren't worth responding to - don't. If you don't believe something - don't say it. That isn't just "how things go," that's a series of decisions you made. Putting that on me shouldn't be something you accept from yourself.
- maxbond 5y ago
  So if I were the President, and I attempted to appoint an unqualified judge and was denied by Congress, you would argue that I don't hold power? Power is not a binary quantity, and there isn't just one type of power.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Yes. A power president would be able to put in unqualified judges. Considering there was recently a president putting in unqualified judges, while the prior president couldn't put in any judges, that is a difference in their power
    - maxbond 5y ago
      So, hucksters cannot be regulated because they don't hold absolute power? Indeed, we can't even talk about power differentials unless there is absolute power? That would seem to contradict your last statement, so I'm just not sure what you are asserting here.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    In a democratic society, the power of the executive is defined by law. The President is a powerful individual, but he is not a King. By law, appointments of certain positions require explicit consent of congress. The ability of regressive partisan elements to break government is a part of the design of the government. I personally find it repugnant and stupid. I also think that the short sighted nature of wielding this power in such a trivial and hamfisted way will ultimately backfire and result in constitutional changes down the road.
    - paisawalla 5y ago
      > The ability of regressive partisan elements to break government is a part of the design of the government. I personally find it repugnant and stupid. It's amazing the way you guys (small-d democrats) are always dressing up what is nakedly the statement that "everything I like and want is good and proceeds in a way I'll call democracy (because I say it's good for the people), but whatever I dislike is authoritarian (even if the people want it.)" It may surprise you to learn that, historically, this is exactly how authoritarianism views itself. Even Saddam Hussein conducted polls of his popularity so he could pretend his sovereignty arose from the people. The Vichy government was legal, popular, and internationally recognized. What the law says on paper is a different thing than what is practiced, and conveniently appealing to what the paper says is a time-honored tactic of eliding inconvenient realities. Democracy, c. 2020s: "The people must be allowed to choose, but only if what they choose is good for them, as decided by me."

rgrieselhuber 5y ago

This is why the Founders (in America) made it clear that the human rights have an ontological basis that transcends any law (rights are granted by God, whatever that means to you). Rights that are granted by laws are not rights at all, which is why the proper understanding of human rights is that they can neither be granted nor taken away by any human law, as any law that would do so is just a coercive force belonging to whoever happens to be in power at the time. The Anti-Federalists were so concerned to make this clear that they even viewed enumerating basic rights in the Bill of Rights as dangerous / likely to be interpreted as exhaustive vs. transcendent, which is exactly what has happened over time, of course.

sillysaurusx 5y ago
This is actually my favorite comment of the year. Pardon the ignorant question, but what did you study to learn this? My midwestern education completely failed me here. I'd like to read whatever it is you read.
- rgrieselhuber 5y ago
  Thank you. :) Man, I wish I had a simple answer for you, it's basically what I've pieced together over the years by trying to fill in the gaps in my own midwestern education. A lot of it, I did pick up by digging into the history the Federalist / Anti-Federalist papers themselves, as well as various readings on the Founders / framing of the Constitution. If I think of anything specific I can point to, I'll follow back up here.
  - sillysaurusx 5y ago
    Thank you. Honestly, any starting point whatsoever would be extremely helpful. That's the thing that's prevented me from ever seriously diving in, mostly because life makes so little time for it. But I can make the time now.
    - rgrieselhuber 5y ago